Requesting Code Review Skill

Requesting Code Review

Dispatch a code reviewer subagent to catch issues before they cascade. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context for evaluation — never your session's history.

Core principle: Review early, review often.

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

After each task in subagent-driven development
After completing major feature
Before merge to main

Optional but valuable:

When stuck (fresh perspective)
Before refactoring (baseline check)
After fixing complex bug

How to Request

1. Define the exact review target:

# Committed range
git diff --stat <base>..<head>
git diff <base>..<head>

# Planned atomic commit before commit creation
git diff --cached --stat
git diff --cached

Use a commit range for committed work. For a planned atomic commit that has not been created yet, stage only its intended paths and review git diff --cached; this keeps fixes inside the atomic commit instead of creating corrective commits.

2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent:

Dispatch a code-reviewer subagent, filling the template at code-reviewer.md

Placeholders:

[DESCRIPTION] - Brief summary of what you built
[PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS] - What it should do
[REVIEW_TARGET] - Exact committed or staged scope
[DIFF_COMMANDS] - Commands exposing exactly that scope

3. Act on feedback:

Fix Critical issues immediately
Fix Important issues before proceeding
Note Minor issues for later
Push back if reviewer is wrong (with reasoning)

Example

[Just completed Task 2: Add verification function]

You: Let me request code review before proceeding.

[Dispatch code-reviewer subagent]
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task 2 from .opencode/plans/deployment-plan.md
  REVIEW_TARGET: commits a7981ec..3df7661
  DIFF_COMMANDS: git diff --stat a7981ec..3df7661; git diff a7981ec..3df7661
  DESCRIPTION: Added verifyIndex() and repairIndex() with 4 issue types

[Subagent returns]:
  Strengths: Clean architecture, real tests
  Issues:
    Important: Missing progress indicators
    Minor: Magic number (100) for reporting interval
  Assessment: Ready to proceed

You: [Fix progress indicators]
[Continue to Task 3]

Common Rationalizations

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "I'll just review the diff myself instead of dispatching a reviewer" | You're the coordinator — reviewing the diff inline burns the context window you need to keep driving the work. Dispatch a reviewer subagent: the diff and the evaluation live in its context, and only the findings come back to you. | | "The reviewer needs my whole session history to understand the change" | Hand it precisely crafted context, never your session's history. That keeps the reviewer on the work product, not your thought process. |

Integration with Workflows

Subagent-Driven Development:

Review each task after its spec-compliance review passes
Catch issues before they compound
Fix and re-review before staging the task or moving to the next task

Executing Plans:

Review at plan-defined atomic commit boundaries
Fix and re-review the complete staged group before committing

Ad-Hoc Development:

Review before merge
Review when stuck

Red Flags

Never:

Skip review because "it's simple"
Ignore Critical issues
Proceed with unfixed Important issues
Argue with valid technical feedback

If reviewer wrong:

Push back with technical reasoning
Show code/tests that prove it works
Request clarification

See template at: code-reviewer.md

Agent Skills: Requesting Code Review

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files